https://scontent.fnbo9-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/131791938_10221640894470271_6818357066095399219_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_eui2=AeEDvLKxkX-J8fxN6yqepIl1tSKgq82Cq0q1IqCrzYKrSvidngqCvr2NppkDGmjldKU&_nc_ohc=8ouV86VHV44AX8cVOgn&_nc_pt=5&_nc_ht=scontent.fnbo9-1.fna&oh=b7b7d2b31b36b697c99c8f37d9f739ed&oe=5FFC2C15
For those of you who thought he can’t and won’t be able to pull it off, poleni sana… shikeni glass ya maji muweze kumeza hikyo kiwaru. ndio hii rink. meeeeenn!!!.. gotta love technicalities!!
Keep dreaming. Some dreams are valid while other will remain just that.
@administrator , give this guy a star. Inbox me if there’re costs involved.
What was the source again?
Disclaimer: job biden is the president elect.
Turedio weka disclaimer Kama iyo whenever trump is mentioned. Asande
I’ve always wondered whether the people who write these things actually believe them, or are just swindling dumb Trump supporters eager to make donations.
Either way, it works for me. Major heartbreak on Jan 20, and they are also liberated from their money.
First of all, whether to reject a state’s result is decided by a simple majority. Congress and senate must both reject it.
Dems still control the house, so zero chance.
This argument of state legislation’s voting does not apply here, because Congress will receive only the votes cast by the OFFICIAL ELECTORS.
Anyone can claim to have alternate electors, including @Purple who can send a letter to congress today arguing that Raila won Michigan.
4 Republican senators have already publicly said they will not attempt to overturn the electors choice, so zero chance there as well. Several others have already acknowledged Biden is president-elect.
So, any objections by a member of the house will only delay the inevitable by 2 hours as the two chambers separate to debate the merits.
In a worst case scenario, where Trump convinces enough legislators and the house is deadlocked, the law states that the electors sent by the governor prevail.
We all know who the governors are sending don’t we?
Why Trump's latest Electoral College ploy is doomed to fail | AP News
AN OPTIMIST:
Someone who expects the hand to DETACH itself from the body…
Even when it’s obvious it will never DO SO…
A for creativity.
Base ya Muguka
hapo sawaaaa lets invoke this uncle Pence , Trump arudi kina Obama wajitombe
you are a fool who does not know how to read and comprehend takataka,
They are swindling them. Many of them are in the business of disinformation to make money. However they under-estimated how dumb their audience can be since they swallow all of it and take it as the truth.
thengiu brasre!!
TRUMP WILL WIN THE ELECTION IN THE END… HERE IS WHY…
State legislatures have final word on election.
Very interesting and definitely something to mull over !!! Have a read…
So the SCOTUS said no. They won’t hear the case. Cue crazy leftists and their inane celebrations. You’re probably pissed off by now because you thought the SCOTUS was going to take this case. Some of you on here can vouch for this, but I’ve stated a few times that the SCOTUS may throw this case out and that, if they did, Trump never needed them to begin with. This is an easy one to explain.
When it comes to elections there is no HIGHER or FINAL authority than the state legislatures. No, not even the Supreme Court has the final say in this, believe it or not. In all of this where is Trump? He’s quiet. Where is Sidney Powell? Lin Wood? Rudy? Jenna? An hour has passed and no one said anything on twitter about it. What if I told you Trump knew this case would get thrown out? He had to know this and I’ll tell you why. One of Trump’s lawyers is Mark Levin’s wife. The Levin’s are leading authorities on constitutional law.
Why is this important? Because the Texas filing was weak. Their argument was REALLY weak, so weak that both of the Levin’s would have told Trump days ago that this case wasn’t going to get heard. In fact…Mark Levin DID say it wasn’t going to get heard on his radio show…all week long and he was right. Justice Alito was right in his decision. He argued that the state of Texas wasn’t, in so many words, as serious about a resolution as they pretended to be. He said there weren’t “interested” in real resolution…and he was right.
He stated that just as in Arizona vs California 589 U.S. where they disputed over the distribution over the water from the Colorado River, the actions of what state cannot disenfranchise the actions of another. In other words Texas can’t say they were wronged because they voted for Trump and PA voted for Biden, even if the laws were illegal. One state cannot dictate the actions of another state otherwise we would have precedence for no individuality of states.
They would all dispute over matters until EVERY state had the same laws…therefore simulating a federal regulation where it becomes national. The SCOTUS cannot set that precedence. What would be next? California suing Nevada for having more favorable tax breaks, drawing California businesses to register there instead of California, disenfranchising the other taxpayers and programs in California that need the tax dollars (for example)? Do you have any idea how bad it would be to make that precedence? When there is no competition there is tyranny.
Moving right along… The state of Texas produced a weak argument. Trump knew this but he still pushed it. Why? Legal strategy.
Here’s what I mean…
In the legal process, the accuser has the greatest amount of pressure in the case. The accused is innocent by default so all of the pressure of proving their side rides on the accuser. At the same time, if the Judge throws the accuser’s case out with prejudice, the accuser can’t bring that complaint up again. What I’m saying is the GREATEST risk to a case is to become the prosecutor. As a matter of fact, it’s easier to DEFEND yourself than it is to PROVE that the person you accused is guilty. Stay with me. It’s long but I’m going somewhere…
So whoever brings the case first runs the highest risk of losing before they even have a chance to fight. Why is that important? Because Trump stands a better chance of winning this as a defendant than he does as an accuser.
Now comes the good part…
I’ve said this a thousand times and I’ll say it again. Trump doesn’t need the courts to win! He only needs for the state legislatures to do their jobs! And…if he gets a SCOTUS hearing that’s just icing on the cake. Now let me tell you what is about to happen.
I thought for a while that one of two things would happen.
1, SCOTUS would hear this first case.
2, SCOTUS would NOT hear the first case but they may or may not hear the second case. We’re having this chat so option 1 didn’t happen.
So here’s what’s going to happen. The state legislatures will be pissed. They will feel as if THEY have been disenfranchised, and either on Monday or January 6th (when Congress count the votes) the state legislatures will CHANGE their certifications to Trump, those 4 states (maybe even AZ and NV too).
This will cause an internal legal battle within the states. By article 2 second 2 of the constitution, the state legislatures have the final say on who they want to certify as the winner of their states. Well this will piss off the Governors who all have illegally certified the states and illegally passed state laws that strip the state legislatures of their article 2 second 2 powers. The states will say “we have the right, we’re not backing down” and the Governor’s AG will say “see you in court.” Now comes that second scenario I talked about. The SCOTUS is in a pickle. They don’t have the authority to tell the state legislatures to ignore the constitution and follow federal law. Federal law is automatically overridden by the constitution.
So they can do one of two things.
Take the case and no matter what they ruled, the state legislatures can ignore it since they have constitutional rights. Or the SCOTUS can do what I THINK they’re going to do…throw the case out. Now you can’t say the SCOTUS was politicized since they threw out both cases. But in throwing OUT the case, they legitimize the state legislature’s decisions. Trump wins.
But what if they take the case? Ok! Remember when I said that it’s harder to win as an accuser than it is as a defendant? Well the AG of PA (for example) will have to explain why and how any federal law can override the constitution. I’m betting 5 of those Justices will disagree with that and they can LITERALLY cite the constitution as precedence and final authority. Trump wins. I believe that the SCOTUS will keep out of this for sake of not showing partiality.
But if they DO get involved, it will be after January 6th where a constitutional crisis will exist and then they would need to step in and settle the matter in 3 possible ways.
1, Ignore the complaints, Trump wins…
2, Take the case, invalidate the elections, give it to the states to vote…Trump wins as we have a state majority of 26 or…
3, Take the case, order a nationwide audit and re-certification. With all the fraud…Trump wins.
In the end, Trump will win. You can roll these dice as many times as you want. The Constitution will win this election for Trump.
And lets Pray it happens that way and the swap is drained and the corrupt Bi-Den and Harris are out and the rest are charged…
[SIZE=7]Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election[/SIZE]
Foreign Policy
Issued on: September 12, 2018
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference, as illustrated in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.
Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1.
(a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):
INDENT the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and[/INDENT]
INDENT if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.[/INDENT]
The report shall identify any material issues of fact with respect to these matters that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are unable to evaluate or reach agreement on at the time the report is submitted. The report shall also include updates and recommendations, when appropriate, regarding remedial actions to be taken by the United States Government, other than the sanctions described in sections 2 and 3 of this order.
(c) Heads of all relevant agencies shall transmit to the Director of National Intelligence any information relevant to the execution of the Director’s duties pursuant to this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. If relevant information emerges after the submission of the report mandated by section 1(a) of this order, the Director, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies, shall amend the report, as appropriate, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall amend the report required by section 1(b), as appropriate.
(d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the head of any agency or any other appropriate official from tendering to the President, at any time through an appropriate channel, any analysis, information, assessment, or evaluation of foreign interference in a United States election.
(e) If information indicating that foreign interference in a State, tribal, or local election within the United States has occurred is identified, it may be included, as appropriate, in the assessment mandated by section 1(a) of this order or in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, or submitted to the President in an independent report.
(f) Not later than 30 days following the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall develop a framework for the process that will be used to carry out their respective responsibilities pursuant to this order. The framework, which may be classified in whole or in part, shall focus on ensuring that agencies fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to this order in a manner that maintains methodological consistency; protects law enforcement or other sensitive information and intelligence sources and methods; maintains an appropriate separation between intelligence functions and policy and legal judgments; ensures that efforts to protect electoral processes and institutions are insulated from political bias; and respects the principles of free speech and open debate.
Sec. 2.
(a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security:
INDENT to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;[/INDENT]
INDENT to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or[/INDENT]
INDENT to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.[/INDENT]
(b) Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, remains in effect. This order is not intended to, and does not, serve to limit the Secretary of the Treasury’s discretion to exercise the authorities provided in Executive Order 13694. Where appropriate, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, may exercise the authorities described in Executive Order 13694 or other authorities in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of authorities provided in this order.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 3.
Following the transmission of the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b):
(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b), and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, impose all appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2(a) of this order and any appropriate sanctions described in section 2(b) of this order; and
(b) the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall jointly prepare a recommendation for the President as to whether additional sanctions against foreign persons may be appropriate in response to the identified foreign interference and in light of the evaluation in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, including, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, proposed sanctions with respect to the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government). The recommendation shall include an assessment of the effect of the recommended sanctions on the economic and national security interests of the United States and its allies. Any recommended sanctions shall be appropriately calibrated to the scope of the foreign interference identified, and may include one or more of the following with respect to each targeted foreign person:
INDENT blocking and prohibiting all transactions in a person’s property and interests in property subject to United States jurisdiction;[/INDENT]
INDENT export license restrictions under any statute or regulation that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or services;[/INDENT]
INDENT prohibitions on United States financial institutions making loans or providing credit to a person;[/INDENT]
INDENT restrictions on transactions in foreign exchange in which a person has any interest;[/INDENT]
INDENT prohibitions on transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, for the benefit of a person;[/INDENT]
INDENT prohibitions on United States persons investing in or purchasing equity or debt of a person;[/INDENT]
INDENT exclusion of a person’s alien corporate officers from the United States;[/INDENT]
INDENT imposition on a person’s alien principal executive officers of any of the sanctions described in this section; or[/INDENT]
INDENT any other measures authorized by law.[/INDENT]
Sec. 4.
I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 2 of this order.
Sec. 5. The prohibitions in section 2 of this order include the following:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 6.
I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the United States of aliens whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or non-immigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 7.
(a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person (including a foreign person) in the United States;
(d) the term “election infrastructure” means information and communications technology and systems used by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a State or local government in managing the election process, including voter registration databases, voting machines, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment for the secure transmission of election results;
(e) the term “United States election” means any election for Federal office held on, or after, the date of this order;
(f) the term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions;
(g) the term “foreign government” means any national, state, provincial, or other governing authority, any political party, or any official of any governing authority or political party, in each case of a country other than the United States;
(h) the term “covert,” with respect to an action or attempted action, means characterized by an intent or apparent intent that the role of a foreign government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly; and
(i) the term “State” means the several States or any of the territories, dependencies, or possessions of the United States.
Sec. 9.
For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 2 of this order.
Sec. 10.
Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 11.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may re-delegate any of these functions to other officers within the Department of the Treasury consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 12.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 13.
This order shall be implemented consistent with 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1) and (3).
Sec. 14.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
INDENT the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or[/INDENT]
INDENT the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.[/INDENT]
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 12, 2018.
This is what planning ahead looks like… bet you fcukers didn’t see that move, aye??.. PURE GENIUS!!!
https://www.senate.gov/index.htm
ndiyo hiyo rink ya katiba yao… haijafanyiwa BBI since 1992. TAFAKARINI!!!
Mouraythee please summarize
Do you want to put money where your mouth is.
If others are grifting Trump supporters, I think I can join in on the action.
Wekelea 200 doras.
Is this the Executive Order Qanon have been wanking over?
Which part states that the losing candidate gets to remain in office. I’ve read and I can’t see it.
Not that it would matter, because even judge Judy would quickly rule it illegal, leave alone justices of the highest court.